Re: [TLS] Draft 18 review : Message order
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 22 November 2016 19:31 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F792129B46 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:31:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LlAu2iv_AgX9 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43F311294AA for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id a10so23020083ywa.3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:26:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tLMzN/eUvg7+UyJMch6vEAhW2TRwwXvfEiqSVJ2AWZk=; b=NNViIX3BUxr9SOG/sO+ETx+jFVVfPDf6+2bbYGGzIjEZpHP+2OHCe3S0q7R7H6B7vE fsgFNOb02mKKS/YOVZNhcf1FZRSdbvB8azCmf40qi9LJyY73y6VHFksMqBNO6T4mir1J NyXq+a6Tp7J6Xu6BDkBdUbHFejlqdyEE0+mPFMfxkL84f0/myXDJKD8mGF6lM88/5Z6C YbW2jxtA/INR9uV9UC64Jq9XtxTS622gvJHieCYnpEptBllBKsD0FeLerxi49mvG+l+X yY9yta2ADCKiE4Byv/qs/HFI9+lMSEjeqj1M9RCWoEyR7lpw4U8JcH6+42YWsTIcLdaC D5wQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tLMzN/eUvg7+UyJMch6vEAhW2TRwwXvfEiqSVJ2AWZk=; b=JtnSJgj9Da48hJVnxihC2A3MPDAwyTEB8cZ4z8Uv00L0a0cjlEYNVzYYtX3U7Wnx9a jHeq55SoS3/XJtZ7S5vfzaVxrMo6p7O5KTZfknP40M4ESUzEPAxbKk2LZDxLuyaHLIVv mFwgk1u4GaYGXJq6Q5HMIbQ1UlX/t46Zbraijc/8nXsTS+kIg3iNc6on+yWBKG2IpvIo lUzFniX0LWPa1GdObN412Ujh7bSQbGDjLqqqEMBFAGmQ6fRVMcrxhT42Nzxgxv3OaWSU QwYxK1fPw+vVVoHOavtazusnIMb1mOBif/Wkh+7Et+1UrS7VsqfaTODj7eIpmY+U1XVR wWMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00U6Nw9gTQPjM4170xmCEPhKkqjpu0vM6Cn0AAxhM9/d3rJXwTKNeoXDYbuUV2LHxcf2lXamYQyp793uQ==
X-Received: by 10.129.121.1 with SMTP id u1mr21480262ywc.146.1479842759560; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:25:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.159.141 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:25:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20161122190758.GG19978@neoplankton.picty.org>
References: <20161122190758.GG19978@neoplankton.picty.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:25:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNC_KepTUUMABU7YAN29UWpwBOp5XW6pCkFhhN82+hGjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olivier Levillain <olivier.levillain@ssi.gouv.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0a8f8201ff4e0541e8bec1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/1CscFshMW9sMsWxwkKK6Cjstwtk>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Draft 18 review : Message order
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:31:34 -0000
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Olivier Levillain < olivier.levillain@ssi.gouv.fr> wrote: > > = Message order = > > I believe the message P.27 section 4 is important, but not > sufficient. As already expressed on the list, a formal automaton > should be provided in the spec. > > I think Ekr said there was some work in progress in this area. Is > this a goal for the final specification? > Yes, I will put some sort of more complete state machine in the final spec (probably in -19) -Ekr > > Olivier Levillain > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
- [TLS] Draft 18 review : Message order Olivier Levillain
- Re: [TLS] Draft 18 review : Message order Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Draft 18 review : Message order Olivier Levillain